>Thank you all for the suggestions. On one discussion forum I >found, somebody mentioned that almost any card would work, >just at the time the largest card produced was 8gigs. > >At this point I am looking for something that works. I do not >mind it being a fast card especially if I am going to be >upgrade. If it works that is all that matters.
I know I've put 32GB cards in my D200 for remote work, and had no issues.
>And I am not going to purchase a card that holds 8-16 gigs and >only keep 289 images on there.
Ok. But as has been stated, your access to smaller cards is about to go away.
>I am making a point that I >would rather have a max of 8 gigs, and hold several cards that >way during a 10 hour, 3 day shoot, I would only risk losing >(god forbid if it happens) less than 500 images rather than >lose a whole days worth of work.
The problem with this argument is historical. We had these same arguments in film. Thirty Six exposures on ONE ROLL??? Suppose something happens in development! We had them at the advent of digital. NINETY pictures on ONE CARD (512MB cards)? OMG, No pro would ever risk such a thing. Same thing when 1GB cards came out. Now most pros are shooting 32GB or 64GB cards while there are 128GB cards out there. In a few years 128GB cards will be "normal".
>Especially when shooting weddings I would rather take the 5 >seconds to change cards than lose an entire wedding on one or >two cards.
This is why most people shooting for money these days use cameras that write to more than 1 card at a time. This has been true for over 5 years now.
>Also everytime I purchase a card I take a couple of random >shots, upload to my Mac, format it and do it again with >different formats and a few times to ensure that the card does >work.
Good idea. I shoot about 8 cards a week, sometimes more. So mine are constantly getting tested.